
Class LjUA. 

Rnnk .I]t7 



SPEECH 



/v"^ 



MICDAVJS, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 28, isil. 



THE COMniOMISE UUESTION, 




[this late BDinON APPEARS IV CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEMAND FOR THIS SPEECH.] 



The Senate having resumed the consideration of 
the resolution subnutted by Mr. Foote, of Mis- 
eissipiii, and amended on the jiiotion T>f Mr. 6ad-> 
CER, us follows: 
" A |{<.'s>iliiiiiJM (Icclarini; the measures or attjustmcnt to be a 

■d"'finiiivr 41-iUciiiC'iil of Uic questions giuiviiig out of do- 

iiii'mHi: Blavt-ry. 

lie it Tffoli^H, That tha series of raoasiiroa embraced in 
di(! nets •iiiiirTiU'An act pruposiiig lo tbu .Slate of Texan 
tin; "•-t.ilin-hiiii lit 1)1 litr Niirtlierii and VVostcru houiidafirji, 
Uic n liii.|iii-liiii. Ill, liy llie said Stale, of nil li-rritory 
riaiiiii'd li> Ifr I'Vlrtiur III ^ald buiiiuiaries, and of all her 
clainn ii|iiiii till- I'mtiil Sialfs ami to ost.-iblii^li a territnrial 
Boveriiniehl lor Vow Mi'xicu," a|ipri)vcd ^?e|)lelllbl■ri), l^oU; 
''An act liir Ilie admis-nui of iliu rStati.- of California into 
Oie Hnioii," a|i|iriived .Se|iti-mber 9, If.iO; '-An act to es- 
tablish a terrilorial govi-rnment for I °tah,'' approved Sep- 
tember H, IK'jO; "An act lo amend and siipplrnii^ntary to 
an act i-nutled -An Bctres|iecliii(; fugitives from justice, and 
pcrsuiiH escapiiiK from the service of their masters,' ap- 
proved February I'J, 17l';t,'' approved Septi-nibur 18, 1850; 
and '-An act lo suppress thn stave trade in the District of 
Coluinbia," approved September 'JO, IKiO, commonly 
known as the ■■ CoinpromiM' Acts," arc, in llie judgment 
of this bHdy, a hetileinent in principle and substance— a 
final Ki'lllctnent of the dangerous and exciting subjects 
whiL-li lliey enibraee, and oiiuht lo De adhered to by L'on- 
gn-ss until time and experience shall deinoiistratc the ne- 
cessity of furUicr legislation to guard against evasion or 
abuse — 

Mr. DAVIS snid: 

Mr. I'RKsinENT: I wish to submit a few remarks 
to tiie Semite before this question is finally acted 
upon, if it is to be disposed of by a vote upon its 
merits. It was my purpose, when this resolution 
was introduced, to submit iriy views to the Senate 
before its pas.sa^e; but the debate very early be- 
came personal in its character, perhaps a little 
unusually so; and while that personal controversy 
existed, 1 had no inclination to enter iijto the dis- 
cussion. Since that time, the consideration of the 
subject Ims been postponed, from time to lime, up 
to this day, and 1 should have felt little reg^ret if 
its repose had not been disturbed. 

We have, Mr. President, during the last two 
sessions of Congress, or nearly so, devoted a very 
ior^e portion of our time to tranqualizing and ap- 



il peasing the country, supposed to be in a state of 
; I agitation upon the questions involved in this reso- 
j lution. And, sir, at the beginning of this third 
t| session since those topics have been under discus- 
[ sion, the firpt movement made here, is the renewal 
: of a_pro])osition to recognize in a form unusual, 
I the acts called the compromise measures, with a 
viewtogive to them fresh vigor and new strength. 
i;Well, sir, I am among those who are not con- 
sidered precisely the friends of the compromise, 
although I believe I voted for some three or four 
of the measures that are grouped together under 
that designation. But still, as I did not go what 
is called the whole figure in the matter, I am classed 
I j among those who are opposed to the measures of 
' I peace, as their friends designate them. We acted, 
: .sir, when these topics were before us, with great 
i deliberation; and 1, among others, following out 
j my own convictions, gave the votes which are 
placed upon the record, as the result of my best 
judgment. I do not undertake to say tliat they 
I are right or wrong; but they were given in accord- 
; ance with my own conscientious convictions. But 
] since the passage of these various measures, they 
I have been a topic of very extended discussion out- 
I side of the walls of Congress, with the avowed 
, intent to harmonize the public mind by persua- 
' ding, if possible, all persons to settle down upon 
tlie compromise acts as a compact, and to rest in 
tranquillity. 

I Now, Mr. President, I think that nothing is 
more desirable than tranquillity; nothing can con- 
I tribute more to the peace and happiness of this 
I country than a state of repose upon these topics. 
I But, sir, I think that our experience has shown us 
that agitation is not to be composed by agitation, 
; but that agitation outside of these walls is greatly 
; promoted by agitation inside of them; and that 
I the speediest way, after all, is to let these subjects 
I alone if you intend or desire that the public mind 
I shall be tranquilized upon them. But, sir, I do 
I not wish to dwell upon this aspect of the question. 



In order to meet this resolution in an intelligent 
Way, and to test its merits, if it has any, it is 
necessary that I should advert to the measures 
separately which compose what is called the 
"Compromise," in order that I may see what 
bearing this resolution has upon each — in order 
that I may see what application it has — whether 
there is a propriety in passing it with a view to the 
objects which have been avowed by its supporters. 
I will notice them in their order, beginning with 
the admission of California into the Union, which 
is generally placed in the lead. The true ques- 
tion arising under the resolution is, whether any 
action of Congress is desiraljle in regard to the 
act admitting California? Does that act require j 
any futher recognition from this body — any fur- 
ther legislation in order to impress the public 
mind with its importance? Does it need support 
hereto give it stability? Does it need to have 
any new vigor infused into it that it may the more 
certainly accomplish its object? Sir, let us ex- 
amine the facts of the case for an instant, and see 
how we stand. That act is not essentially difi'er- 
ejit in its general features from acts employed to 
admit States generally. It is much in the same 
form. There is no essential difference. The Con- 
stitution of the United States provides that Con- 
gress shall have power to admit new States into j 
the Union. Well, sir, we have admitted Califor- i 
nia. She is here with her Senators in this Cham- j 
ber, and her representatives in the other House. 
California, then, is in the Union, admitted to be a i 
member of it; but, sir, let it be remembered, that 
while Congress have power to admit new Slates | 
into the Union, they have no power to turn them 
out of it. You may turn round and repeal this 
act to-morrow, and it will be only brutumfalmcn; \ 
it amounts to nothing. You have no more power, 
no more authority to put California out of the 
Union than you have to put the Slate of New York 
out of it. Sir, this act of admission has executed 
itself; the power is exhausted; the thing is past; 
it has gone into the history of the country; and 
now, what necessity is there for giving new ex- 
pression, and new support, and new vigor to an 
act of this sort? None at all, sir. It is obvious 
on the face of it. | 

Then, sir, how is it in regard to the boundary 1 
act? VVe had a disputed boundary with Texas — i 
a very troublesome question I admit — arising be- I 
tween that Slate and the United States. That 
question involved, also, the question of slavery, j 
because the slaveholding portion of the country 
were anxious to embrace within the lirnits of Texas, 1 
that being a slave Slate, all the territory to which 
any plausible pretension could be set up; and this 
circumstance alone invested it with importiince. 
Texas, sir, never had possession of a portion of | 
the country which she claimed. It was conquered ' 
by the army of the United States. Mexican juris- ' 
diction existed, and was maintained throughout, 
the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, when the [ 
army was sent to that region. The Mexicans ; 
were dispossessed of that jurisdiction, and posses- | 
sion was taken by the troops of the United States; 
yet Texas, having extended upon paper her ' 
boundary westward to the Rio Grande, when the | 
conquest was made and secured by treaty to the j 
United Slates, came in and claimed it for her bene- | 
fit. She asserted a right to New Mexico, founded 
on this paper boundary, though she was a stranger | 



to the territory, alleging that the conquest inured 
to her benefit. Sir, Texas in this way set up her 
claim, and she was backed up by a party outside 
of this Chamber — not a parly which was created 
by the then existing stale of things, but a party 
which had long existed in the country — a party 
who were desirous of secession from this Union, 
and watching for an opportunity — in other words 
a party that was and had been from the days of 
nullification disunionisls. They perceived at once 
that this boundary question was just the thing on 
which to raise doubts and involve the puljlic mind 
in perplexity. The larger the limits of Texas the 
greater would be the slave territory, and hence any 
proposition to curtail the boundaries had an ex- 
citing interest. My friend from Texas [Mr. Rusk] 
smiles at this remark; but I was about to say that 
he and his colleague managed very judiciously for 
Texas: they encouraged that state of feeling, and 
it went on here just for the purpose of enabling my 
friends from Texas to drive a good and profitable 
bargain forthat Slate. Nevertheless, withoutd well- 
ing upon this subject, the bargain was made^ 
Texas was bought out; Congress did propose in 
the bill which passed both Houses certain propo- 
sitions to the Stale of Texas to adjust this bound- 
ary. It was necessary, by the terms of these prop- 
ositions that Texas should give her assent to 
them; and, when she did so giveher assent, itwas 
to settle the boundary, and she was to have the 
sum of ten millions of dollars in consideration of 
the concessions which she was supposed to make, 
that is, she was to cease all complaints. 

Now, sir, I do not desire to enter upon the mer- 
its of this matter. I simply wish to say th»t this 
act of Congress — Texas having given Ijer assent to 
it — is a contract between two partie^bne of which, 
is the United States and the other the State of 
Texas. 

And now, Mr. President, I will ask gentlemen 
whether they have any i-ight to modify this act? 
It stands here in the nature of a contract under 
hand and seal, between these parties, and can no 
more be modified by the one without the consent 
of the other, than one individual can modify an 
agreement between him and another. On what 
ground, then, are we, by this resolution, to impart 
fresh strength or importance to this act? The idea 
that such an act needs strenslhening, or needs con- 
firmation, implies that the United Slates are about 
to dishonor themselves by denying its provisions, 
or by refusing to execute thein in good faith. But, 
as no such step is meditated, I apprehend there is 
no occasion whatever for the passage of this res- 
olution. 

The next acts are those establishing territorial 
governments in Utah and New Mexico which I 
shall consider together. I should have remarked, 
that I voted for both the previous acts u]ion which 
I have been commenting, but I voted against these 
territorial goverment acts, not because I did not 
suppose that government was necessary in these 
Territories, and that there vvas an obligation upon 
Congress to maintain order an protect rights there 
But it will be remembered, that the President sent 
a message to the two Houses of Congress, inform- 
ing them, of what they very well knew, that there 
had been an attempt made to create a territorial gov- 
ernment for one of those Territories which had failed 
because of a disagreement between the two Houses 
concerning the provisions of the act, and as legisla- 



3 



tion had failed he advised that New Mexico should | 
remain as she was under the existing government ; 
till Congress should give a !)etier. ' 

I was opposed to these territorial acts for rea- j 
sons which I will very briefly assign. I was op- 1 
posed, sir, to the extension of slavery into free ter- : 
ritory, and had been, as everyone knows, who | 
has paid any attention to my services here. That i| 
principle I had repeatedly avowed, and it gov- ij 
erned me in my action upon these territorial bills. ![ 
New Mexico was free territory; California was j 
free territory; and I was opposed to the extension i 
of slavery into such territory. This, however, 
was not the only consideration, but there was an- ] 
other of greater and more imperative character. I ; 
thought that another course of policy was not only 
justified, but demanded by the best interests of the 1 
country. The President, in the message to which 
I have referred, said the territorial bill for gov- 
ei-ning New Mexico had fallen , and the wisest way, 
under existing circumstances, was to let her remain ji 
under the provisional government established by Ij 
the preceding Administration. This was the opin- '] 
ion of the honest, the sagacious, the pure, the sin- II 
gle-hearted Taylor. He saw what was coming, | 
and that a state of things would soon exist, which, i 
if met with patriotism and candor, would silence 
the turbulent spirit which had shown itself. !| 

Long before these measures, termed thecompro- i 
mise acts, became a law, there was a constitution ! 
brought to the Capitol and laid upon the tables of ;| 
the two Houses, made by the Territory of New il 
Mexico. She, finding herself to be in the same | 
attitude as California, pursued the same course. ; 
She elected a convention of delegates, instructing 
them to frame a constitutional government. That 
constitution w^s framed, was submitted to the peo- 
ple, was ratified, and was laid before Congress, 
requesting that New Mexico might be admitted 
into this Union as a State. Thus both Territories 
were before us at the same time, and under circum- 
stances not dissimilar. I was in favor of admit- 
ting her as well as California; and notwithstanding 
aJl that has happened since, I have never to this 
moment doubted the wisdom of that policy; and I 
will state to you very briefly and very frankly, 
why I have never doubted it. 

In my opinion, the constitution which .sheadopt- 
ed was a liijeral, well-devised scheme or govern- 
ment; but it received no favor or countenance from 
the majority of the two Houses of Congress. It 
was rather treated, (through unpropitious influ- 
ences,) if I may use so strong an expression, with 
scorn and contempt, under the pretense that New 
Mexico was not yet in a fit state and condition to 
come into this Confederacy, though we all see, by 
the returns of the Census, that she has a Icirger 
popukition than many States which have been ad- 
milted into the Union; that she had long been an 
organized State in the Mexican Confederacy, and 
had necessarily acquired that knowledge of free 
government which would qualify her for an en- 
tranceinto thisUnion. But I do notintend to discuss 
that question; I mean to say merely, that it would 
have been wiser to have admitted her as a member 
of this Confederacy than to have rejected her propo- 
sition, and place a territorial government over her. 
Sir, I think it would have been more judicious, be- 
cause it would have settled this agitated question for- 
ever. There would have been the end of it, and the 
end of agitation. If she had been admitted, this 



agitation which now vexes the country would have 
ceased long, long ago. And 1 think I can show 
conclusively, that such would have been the re- 
sult. She came here as California did, with a pro- 
vision in her constitution prohibiting the introduc- 
tion of slavery. Suppose she had been admitted 
with that constitution, she would then have been 
a member of this Confederacy with that provision 
in her constitution, and the question of slavery, 
so far as it regards these two great frontier States, 
would have been settled, and settled forever. 
There would have remained , after admission , noth- 
ing to complain of, nothing to agitate with suc- 
cess, if, in the admission, no principle was violated; 
and I believe such a course would have command- 
ed, in the end, the approbation of the whole 
country. The free States could have raised no 
valid objection, anxi the slave States would have 
been silenced by their own principles. There 
would have been no escape from it; and I will 
show you why. The slave States have, at all 
times, denied the right of Congress to legislate 
with respect to the introduction of slavery into the 
Territories; but they have not denied the right of 
the local population, when it comes to claim ad- 
mission to the Union, to frame their constitution 
as they please on this point, prohibiting, if they 
see fit, the existence of slavery. On the contrary, 
the leading men of the South have favored that 
idea. I will read you, sir, the views of a very 
distinguished Senator from the State of South Car- 
olina, now no more — the late Mr. Calhoun. I 
read from a resolution laid before the Senate by 
that honorable and lamented gentleman in 1847. 
It is one of a series of resolutions, in the Journal 
of the Senate, upon this very subject, this matter 
of slavery agitation, and it is in these words: 

" Resolved, That as a fundamental principle in our political 
ereed, a people, in fonnirig a constitution, have the uncon- 
ditional riyht to form and adopt the s;overnnieut which they 
may think best calculated to secure their liberty, prosperity, 
and happiness; and that in conformity thereto, no of Aercon- 
ilition is imposed by the Federal Constitution on a State, in 
order to be admitted into the Union, except that its consti- 
tution shall be rcpuhiican ; and the imposition of any other 
condition by Cojiiiress would not only l)e in violation of the 
Constitution, but in tUrect conflict with the principles on 
which our political system rests." 

There, sir, is a very distinct avowal, an unde- 
1 niable recognition of the right of a local f)opula- 
tion, in making a constitution, to introduce such 
opinions in regard to slavery as they see fit; and 
that opinion is declared by that honorable gentle- 
man to be binding, and any attempt on the part of 
Congress to deviate from it, would be a violation of 
the Constitution of the United States. Well, sir, 
how was it during the discussion in regard to the 
admission of California? There was a provision of 
this kind in the constitution of that State. Was 
there any gentleman here, in the various discus- 
sions which we had upon that subject of many 
months' duration, who denied that California had 
a right to put such a provision into the constitu- 
tion she had made? I did not hear everything that 
was said on that subject, and therefore there might 
have been; but I remember no gentleman raising a 
question on that point; and such was the statement 
of a Senator from Mississippi at this session, [Mr. 
Foote.] But, sir, I have a piece of evidence more 
conclusive than that on this particular point. We 
passed, as you, Mr. President, very well know, 
a territorial law establishing the Territory of New 



Mexico. Into the second section of that law we 
put these words: 

" Provided, further, That, when admitted as a State, the 
eaUl Territory or any portion of the same shall be received 
into the Union with or without i^lavery, as that constitution 
may prescribe, at tlie time of her admission." 

Well, that was voted for by the South, and is 
a distinct recognition of the right in the territo- 
rial law itself to place such a provision in the con- 
stitution of the State as they may see fit in regard 
to this subject. This is tantamount to an affiniia- 
tion of power in a Territory to exercise its free will 
on this point, as was done in California, Arkan- 
sas, and other States, and as far as the South was 
concerned was doubtless intended as a declaration 
of right. Suppose New Mexico had been admitted 
as a State with a provision in her constitution 
which she had a right to place there according to 
these authorities, is it not true, as I said in the 
outset, that this question would have been settled — 
settled forever — and there would have been an end 
to all agitation — an end to it upon principle — upon 
a principle recognized by the slaveholding interests 
and adopted by (hem as sound and conclusive in 
its character.' Nothing seems to me to be plainer 
than this. Then, sir, I return to the remark which 
I have already made, that, in my judgment, it 
would have been more for the peace and happiness 
of the country if New Mexico had been admitted 
into the Union with this provision, and then this 
great and troublesome question would have been 
settled. There was other territory, it is true, in 
which slavery might have been established, but it j 
is not probable that it would leap this frontier line 
of States to establish itself beyond them and in 
their rear. This was my leading motive in pre- 
ferring a constitutional to a territorial government 
for New Mexico; because I perceived, as well as 
did other gentlemen at the time, that this question 
would be necessarily agitated under a territorial 
government; that there would necessarilj'^ be a 
struggle in regard to it on the one side or on the 
other, to fix the character of the Territory when 
it should come to be a State; and so the course of 
events has proved. 

Before passing to the next question, I shall 
make one remark more in connection with the sub- 
ject embraced in this resolution. This resolution 
froposes to give stability to this territorial law. 
t proposes that it shall be a sort of finality — an 
unalterable law — a law not to be amended or modi- 
fied by Congress, but one that shall stand as it is 
forever. Now, sir, the assumption of any such 
ground is wholly incompatible with the duty which 
Congress owes to these Territories. If any emer- 
gency should spring up to render legislation in 
Congress necessary or expedient, it is the duty of 
Congress to respond; and it will legislate, notwith- 
Btanding the passage of any resolution, or any 
eentimenls, which may be cherished or cultivated 
in the country. But it is perfectly obvious that 
these territorial laws cannot be permanent. We 
have, in the first place, a usage binding in its 
character, to admit a State created out of territory 
of the United States, when the people are in a fit 
condition to be admitted. If there were nothing 
else, that usage would be obligatory upon us. But 
there is something beyond this. The treaty of 
Guadalupe Hidalgo provides that these Territories 
shall come into the Union when they are in a 
suitable condition for that purpose. It is, there- 



fore, not only repugnant to common sense, but to 
our duty, to undertake to say that a law of this 
description shall be permanent and irrepealable in 
its character. The time must come when a con- 
stitution will be madefor each of these Territories, 
and that constitution will necessarily displace 
these territorial laws, and render them obsolete. 
Then, sir, I do not think that this resolution is 
very applicable to so much of the compromise 
measures as relates to these territorial governments, 
any more than to the two preceding measures 
which I have noticed. 

Sir, I have now disposed of four of these meas- 
ures, and the next is a little bill in regard to the 
slave trade in the District of Columbia. That, 
sir, is a very unimportant matter, and may be dis- 
patched in a very few words. It is, I know, 
sometimes magnified into an important concession, 
but whether important or unimportant, I do not 
believe that anybody desires to disturb it. This 
law, as 1 understand it, only brings the District to 
a level with the condition of things in Maryland, 
and by it the District is now placed upon the same 
platform as that State in this respect. It had fallen 
into the rear in the progress of things, and it is 
now brought up and placed upon an equality with 
Maryland. But if gentlemen feel anxious to re- 
peal this law, I should look upon such a proposi- 
tion with some regret, although I have no idea 
tliat it would be the occasion of a great many tears 
being shed in the country. 1 therefore dismiss 
that matter, and come to the fugitive slave law, 
which is the last of the measures comprehended 
by the compromise. It will be remembered that 
in the outset, this fugitive slave law made no con- 
siderable figure in the report of the great Commit- 
tee of Thirteen. It had no place in ■♦heir original 
bill. It was noticed in their report, but not in their 
bill, and was finally imbodied by members op- 
posed to the compromise. But, sir, this charmed 
robe of " compromise " has been thrown around 
this measure, and from its very passage it has be- 
come altogether the most important of any meas- 
ure embraced in that category. I do not see how 
this resolution can apply to anyone of these meas- 
ures with any pertinence, unless it be the fugitive 
slave act; and in that view the fugitive slave act 
comes to be, as it is, the compromise itself. It is 
the only one of the batch which needs nursing. 

Mr. President, I voted against this act, and I 
voted against it because the convictions of my 
mind settled down upon the conclusion that it was 
my duty to do it; not because I then felt or now 
feel any objection to carrying out that part of the 
Constitution which provides for the return of fugi- 
tive slaves. No, sir. There never was a moment 
when I had any doubt on that point. That is 
a part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is 
a whole; it is a compact, and all its parts are bind- 
ing upon every portion of the country. Some of 
them are more important than others, but, never- 
theless, all are binding, all are obligatory upon the 
whole country. No, sir; I am not among those — 
if there be any such — who efeteem parts of the 
Constitution as valid, and other portions as in- 
valid. I maintain no such doctrine as that. I 
take the instrument as it is; and I am willing, for 
one, to abide by it in honor and in good faith, and 
under all circumstances which may exist. 

It was not, again-st a suitable law that I 
lifted my voice, but it was against this particular 



law. Why did I vote no, when that act was 
before this body ? Because, Mr. President, I 
deemed the provisions of it, in their detail, as un- 
suitable in their character; because I thought they 
were not pertinent and applicable to the subject; 
and because I did think that some of the great fun- 
damental features of the Constitution were too 
much disregarded in that bill. 

While I have no disposition to agitate, neither 
have I any concealment of my views on this sub- 
ject, but I speak them frankly here and elsewhere. 
I am no advocate of agitation. But I know how 
extremely difficult it is for a gentleman to speak 
his thoughts upon this subject, without his lan- 
guage being misunderstood, and his sentiments 
misrepresented in the community; nevertheless, 
whoever acts upon these questions must encounter 
these difficulties. 

There is, iji my judgment, no question raised in 
the judicial tribunals of the country which is of 
greater or of higher importance than the question 
of personal libeVty. And if there beany question 
which is entitled to the deliberate consideration of 
etich tribunals, and to all the guards and guaran- 
tees given in judicial forms to secure deliberation 
and impartiality, it is preeminently that of personal 
freedom. 

Well, Mr. President, what are the provisions 
of this law? Before, however, I enumerate them, 
I ask attention for a moment to the watchful guar- 
dianship and protection which the Constitution 
itself gives to all parties who enter a judicial tri- 
bunal to have a question in controversy settled, 
whether affecting property or the person. In the 
first place, whenever a question at common law 
is put upon trial, involving property exceeding '^20 
in value, it is to be settled by a jury. And ."itill 
more watchful is the Constitution over the rights 
of citizens when charged with crime. No man 
can be held to answer for a felony until the grand 
inquest have found a bill against him; nor is any 
man put upon trial for crime except by his peers, 
a petit jury. 

These are among the fundamental principles of 
the Constitution. We learn from English history 
itself that this institution of a jury was considered 
the palladium of British liberty. If there be any 
principle precious to us, if there be any one thing 
that is a more effective shield than all others be- 
tween us and the oppression of a court, it is the 
intervention of a man's own peers upon the ques- 
tion of man's jiroperly, or a question touching his 
guilt, if he is charged with crmie. I mention this 
merely to show how vigilant the Constitution is in 
regard to personal right and the right of property, 
and how carefully it guards and protects the rights 
and liberty of every citizen. 

I now return to the inquiry, What is this law? 
What are its provisions? It provides that thi.s 
great question of personal liberty shall be settled 
not by a jury, not by a judge, not by a man sup- 
posed to possess leprning and official dignity, but 
by an inferior magistrate — a man appointed to-day 
and sul)ject to removal to-morrow. The law itself 
Bays it shall be a "summary process" — a process 
in a corner, instead of an open public trial noto- 
rious to everybody. Again, the question is to be 
eettled by evidence taken ex parte, which the party 
arraigned has no opportunity to meet, to explain, 
or to controvert. Then, Mr. President, I say 
there has not been sufficient regard paid, on a 



question of this description, to the great funda- 
mental principles of the Constitution. But I shall 
be answered, I know, by gentlemen, who will 
say that the provision in the Constitution in rela- 
tion to the return of fugitive slaves is silent in re- 
gard to a jury. That is true; it neither indicates 
that a jury should be required, nor that it should 
not. What, under such circumstances, is to be 
done? My opinion leads me to this conclusion — 
other gentlemen may differ, and no doubt do differ 
from me, but in the absence of a provision, my 
judgment is — that they should follow out, in ma- 
king a law in this case, the provision which the 
Constitution makes in analogous cases. That 
would seem to me to be the proper interpretation 
of the Constitution itself. If in other cases touch- 
ing liberty and property, a jury is required, it 
should be resorted to in this. Without dwelling 
long upon this subject, I consider this law as un- 
necessarily stringent in its character, and as not 
regarding sufficiently in its provisions the leading 
and fundamental principles of the Constitution, 
though I do not mean to say it is unconstitutional 
in the letter; yet it has not that respect for those 
fundamental principles which the importance of 
the subject-matter seems to me to demand, and 
which a fair interpretation of the Constitution re- 
quires. That is the view I take of this subject. 

But there is another matter to be considered. 
When we read that statute, there is a suggestion 
that always arises in the mind, and it is this: 
Why is this act, which carries out a certain pro- 
vision of the Constitution, at variance with those 
general principles that may be esteemed analogous 
in their character ? Why are those principles 
shunned? Why is there no jury ? Why an ab- 
sence of those formalities which constitute the 
guarantees of a fair and deliberate trial ? I never 
could see but one answer to these inquiries. The 
implication from the absence seems to be, that the 
people who are selected for juries in the free States 
are not to be trusted with ])Ower of this descrip- 
tion. I do not speak of the motives which have 
influenced any one, for they are unknown to me; 
but I speak of what almost necessarily suggests 
itself to the mind of the reader — the miplication 
that arises in the mind from reading the act itself, 
and gathering up its tenor and its provisions. I 
do not think, if that is the spirit of the act, that 
the inference which is implied is authorized or 
justified by any facts which exist. What is the 
effect of it? It amounts to this: "We distrust 
' your sentiments upon this topic; we distrust 
' your integrity, your honor, your good faith, 
! ' your disposition to execute, fairly and honora- 
' bly, the Constitution of the country; and, dis- 
' trusting that, we will not confide the power to 
' you."" I hope no such conviction has influenced 
tlie mind of any one; if it has, great injustice has 
been done to the fidelity of jurymen thn ug'i mis- 
appreliension of their attachment to the Co istitu- 
tion of their country. In my opinion, sir, those 
who desire an effective law would obtain their ob- 
ject by a liberal act with greater certainty than by 
one not acceptable to those amongst whom it.is 
executed. In my judgment, there is no disposi- 
tion among the great body of the people who con- 
stitute the juries of the free States, to shun the du- 
ties which they owe to the country in the execution 
of the laws and the Constitution— none whatever; 
and to assume that there is, involves grave con- 



6 



siderations, and awakens feelings neilhercalculated 
to promote harmony or to cherish the respect for 
legislation which it is desirable to accord to it. 

1 need not say more upon this. I have revised 
in my own mind the proceedings upon this topic; ! 
I have anxiously considered them, and considered | 
them with the hope that I might be convinced that [ 
this was a wise law, and that I might be able 
cheerfully to give to it my support on all occa- 
sions, and to say that it was a prudent and proper 
measure, and ought to be supported by public 
opinion. But, sir, I cannot. I am not master of 
my own convictions. The result to which my 
mind comes, from the facts, stands as it did at the 
time the law was ]iassed. But let it not be under- 
stood or supposed, while I reiterate these objec- 
tions to what is denominated the fugitive slave 
law, and while I am unable to vote an opinion 
that it ought to be a permanent act standing, as it 
were, ingrafted upon the Constitution of the coun- 
try, that I am the advocate or apologist of unlaw- 
ful combinations of persons who meditate ob- 
structing the execution of the law by unlawful 
means. No, sir; I never was in any such asso- 
ciation. I never anywhere gave countenance to 
such an act. That is not my policy. I leave this 
act to stand upon the statute-book like other 
statutes; and there let it remain, Mr. President; 
let its validity be tested by the peaceful tribunal 
which the Constitution has provided for that pur- 
pose. And if that tribunal says that it is consti- 
tutional, as [ believe it does, let it remain, and let 
it, like other laws, be executed until it is the 
pleasure of Congress to change, alter, modify, or 
repeal it. Whenever public opinion shall have 
calmed down so that it shall perceive what is best 
adapted to the state of things and the condition of 
the public mind, I apprehend there will be no 
great dilTerence of sentiment on this point. It 
will be perceived generally — South as well as 
North — that an act of milder features, confonning 
more to the judicial system of the country, an act 
securing better the rights of the fugitive and a fair 
opportunity for inquiry, will be vastly more useful 
to them as well as much more satisfactory to the 
rest of the country. Let it stand, then, until that 
time comes. Let the questions which arise from 
it be discussed and disposed of here, as the Con- 
stitution intends they shall be. That is my view 
of the matter. 

I have thus considered all the acts embraced in 
what is called the compromise. The result of my 
inquiry and examination is, that there is no justi- 
fiable reason for undertaking to give new guar- 
antees and new indorsements, by legislative act.'j, 
to this measure. There is nothing to be gained 
by it. On the contrary, the implication naturally 
arises, that the acts need a new opinion to be ex- 
pressed by new bodies, in order to give to them 
the force which the Constitution designs that every 
law shall have, and the tendency is to diminish 
the respect which the public feel for them. 

Mr. President, the consequences which have 
grown out of this continuous agitation of these 
matters in Congress, for a period of more than 
two years, now running into the third successive 
session, have been attended with great, and I ap- 
prehend, lasting mischief to the country. It is 
difficult to appreciate how great it is. One effect 
has been to smother the proceedings of this Gov- 
ernment in everything else. I think some gentle- 



man stated, when we took the docket up during 
this session, that it was the first time we had en- 
tered upon a regular action upon it for two years. 
I do not know how that may be; but I do know 
that there has been little business done, save and 
except that which was indispensable in its char- 
acter — little beyond passing the appropriation bills. 
When Congress came together two years ago, 
there were high iiopes and high expectations, that 
the session might result in the adoption of meas- 
ures which should contribute to the public pros- 
perity, and to the happiness of the great indus- 
trial interests. But, sir, if the iron-master of 
Pennsylvania is gloomy when he sees the fires of 
his forges extinguished; if he is distressed when 
he sees ruin gathering around him while he is ex- 
erting his best energies in prosecuting his business; 
if he is indignant that his repeated and earnest 
appeals to this Government for some protection, a 
protection which comports with the best interests 
of the country, and is well adapted to give to it a 
vigorous prosperity, he must find-the solution of 
his disappointments, his blasted hopes, in the de- 
votion of Congress to this single subject. 

So with the cotton and wool spinner. If some 
see the year gone about while they have run on 
short time, or kept in operation only a part of 
their works, or have started the machinery only to 
rub off the rust, and find the results of the year 
to foot up with a heavy loss, and are unable to 
account for the fact that Congress turns a deaf ear 
when they come here to complain of unjust legis- 
lation as the cause of their sufferings and disap- 
pointments, they also may find the solution of the 
real or seeming neglect in the fact that Congress 
has devoted all its time, all its energies, to this 
threadbare subject of agitation. And so it is with 
the mariner. If the ship-owner or ship-master 
upon the lakes finds his vessel stranded and his 
property lost, and he is indignant that the Govern- 
ment have bestowed no attention upon the numer- 
ous wants of that portion of the country, and given 
no place of refuge to the navigator, his answer to 
all complaints is found in the fact, that we sought 
to provide for him the last day and the last night 
of the session, which was all the time, and more 
than all, we were able to devote to his interests, 
out often months, and at last failed because there 
were more pressing necessities of the Government 
which demanded the remnant which remained. 
These are some of the consequences which have 
grown out of the extraordinary state of things 
which have existed for the last two years; and if 
a plan to frustrate all other legislation had been 
carefully devised, it could not have been more 
effectual. 

Now, what is it that has saved the country from 
a crisis like that of 1840? I have before me a 
book of some authority, which speaks of that 
matter in England. It is from the pen of an Eng- 
lish writer of intelligence and ability, and I will 
read from it a paragraph: 

" Had it not been for the copious stream flowing into the 
colters of the Bank of England t'rom California, v/hich has 
sustained credit and eontinuod prospeiitv during the last 
year, there would, lict/ond all question, have been a mone- 
tary crisis last auturim equalling that of 1847. The immense 
excer^s of our i7/>/);)r/v aliovc our exports amounting to at 
least forty millijns sU-iiin^, must have occasioned such 
a drain on the metallic resmirces of the coiuitry, as would 
have brought down the bank notes in circulation to 
£ 16,000,000, as in November, 1547, had it not beea for the 



copious stream from without, which constantly fed the sup- 
plies of the precious metal." ***** 

" Gold at San Francisco is now worth only £3 5s. an I ' 
ounce: 2s. additional an ounce will bring it to tliis country ; ]\ 
but the Bank of England are forced, by the act of 1844, to . j 
give £3 17s. 10;,<d. to every person who brings it to their ' 
doors. The consequence is that all this gold is brought to | { 
the Bank." ij 

That is the effect produced, in the judgment of 
the writer, by over-trading in England, by an ex- 
cess of imports over the exports of the country. 
She has been saved from the unparalleled catastro- 
phe of 1847 by tlie gold of California. How does ' | 
that apply to us .' Why, sir, it is a fact too noto- 
rious to lead to any misapprehension, that during ' 
the last two years there has been a vast balance of 
imports over and above the value of the exports of 
this country, and we have in that time seen the un- 
mistakable signs of a money crisis obviated by I 
shipping this same California gold to Europe. ; 
What has been the result of the operations i)i Cal- \ \ 
ifornia.' What influence have they Jiad upon the j j 
rest of the country.' The gold which has been j 
raised from the earth there, has, as this writer says, !. 
flowed directly into the Bank of England, because ' 
they are paying a larger price for it tlian it is worth , I 
in California. But it subserves a great purpose '! 
here, by warding off a money crisis in this country \ \ 
by paying for the balances which are due to ai| 
large extent for the excess of imports. What is ! 
the effect of all this upon our business and indus- j j 
trial pursuits.' Very little of this gold stops in the ] ! 
United States. If you keep your eye on thej| 
steamers that sail to Europe from week to week, m 
you find, without exception, that they carry out I 
large quantities of specie. The precious metals !| 
in some form or other, either as coined at the JVIint ■ 
or in the virgin stale, are carried there. It has I !^ 
come to this, then: that gold is raised out of the i: 
bowels of the earth in California as a product, as ! 
an article of merchandise, and it takes the place' 
of the products of labor. Now judge what the! 
difference would be if, instead of paying a balance 
of fifty millions, or any other large sum, again&t 
us in gold, we pay it in the products of labor. You 
can form an estimate at once how useful it would 
be to the country, if the ordinary laborers em- 
ployed at the plough, at the loom, and at theanvil, 
could produce enough to pay these fifty millions. 
It is now produced by irregular labor, by which 
Mr. A.,if fortunate, makes'at once $100,000; Mr. '! 
B. $30,000 or $40,000: and this takes tlie place of j 
regular labor, concentrating money in the hands | 
of a few individuals. If this amount could be j ; 
diffused among the farmers, among the manufac- j 
lurers, and among the mechanics of the country, 1 
among all classes who are engaged in industrial | ! 
occupations and pursuits, tiien your importations j! 
would be paid for by the labor of the country, I j 
instead of by this irregular occupation. But I have il 
before me a slip which I cut from a newspaper, j| 
and which I will take occasion to read to the Senate {j 
in part, as it treats this subject, in my judgment, '! 
with ability, with clearness, and with force: , \', 

" California," says this writer, " which should be as the 
treastiFK-house of the nation, the source of immense ad- 
vantage to our various interests, by stimulating the iiidu-try 
of the coiuitry, by developing its resources, ami l>y suc-lling 
to an almost boundless e.vtent thematcrial prospi rity of imr 
people, does nothing for the country but aot as a make weight [ 



against the depressing influences of the tariff of 1846. Cal- 
ifornia saves us from revulsion. California saves us from 
the etfects of the overwhelming tide of foreign imi)ortations. 
California pays our foreign balances. CaliCoriiia is the 
Fortunatus's purse which shields us from the natural effects 
of our spendthrift career. It is our national goose, laying 
golden eggs, and so allows an almost perfect impunity iu 
national extravagance and wastefulness for the timi; biing. 
But California does not increase our heaps of ingots, il does 
not promote .-Vmerican ( ii(n|Mi-<c or develop American re- 
sources ; it does not ercr i maimtu.i.irirs, and build up vil- 
lages, towns, and cities ; it ,inr^ not diversifv industry and 
employ labor in any of the tin tlK.ii iiml ways in which an 
abundance of m«ney might be expected to display its pres- 
ence and its influence. It does not carry forward enter- 
prise, and schemes of public improvement, or stimulate 
industry, and infuse new life into the channels of business, 
as the annual shower of these vast millions of gold should 
and might reasonably be expected to do. No, California 
docs none of these things. The gold is no sooner dug and 
coined than it is sent off to foreign countries to pay for^vhat 
we buy there, to stimulate foreign industry, forei'gii trade, 
and foreign commerce, and not our own. And the country 
is not to-day one whit better oft', not indeed so well otf, 
with its vast products of California gold, which could be 
made to achieve such stupendous results, as it would have 
been under a sound protective policy, without any Califor- 
nia at all." 

There is, to .say the least, much in these well- 
condensed remarks which deserves consideration. 
This country is a great store-house of nature, 
filled with a superabundance of crude material. 
Our mountains are swelled with coal and iron al- 
most ready for the anvil. We have, too, gold, 
.silver, copper, lead, and nearly all the rnetals, in 
the greatest abundance; and to these may be su- 
peradded all the products of a fertile soil, extend- 
ing from the trojiic to the 49° of north latitude. 
We are a world within ourselves — planted in the 
midst of the greatest, richest, and best blessings of 
a kind Providence— amid such a vast and bound- 
less store-house of nature, that it requires great 
ingenuity so to pervert and misuse these great gifts 
as to bring us to a level in wretchedness with the 
masses upon the other side of the Atlantic. And 
yet we have political economists, who teach us to 
neglect these boundless resources, and to buy in 
Europe what nature has provided for us here — to 
struggle to feed cheaply a starving population at 
thousands of miles distant, because its necessities 
compel it to work cheap — in a word, to carry on a 
process of cheapening and cheapening till we be- 
come as degraded and miserable as they are. I am 
not of that school of economists. There are other 
things connected with the social condition, of 
higher importance and more deserving our regard 
than inoney. If the free laborer means his pos- 
terity shall inherit the blessings of practical free- 
dom, he must look to it in season. He must put 
his face against the policy prescribed for us on the 
other side of the ocean. He must be warned by 
what he sees there before he is caught in tlie fatal 
meshes. 

Mr. President, I had intended to touch upon 
one or two topics of a different character, which 
have been introduced by others; but shall relin- 
quish that purpose. I have not attempted to be 
methodical, but have met the topics as they have 
been presented by others. I could not give my 
support to this resolution, and the circumstances 
under which it is brought up seemed to demand 
of me my opinions, which I have frankly ex- 
pressed, and now take my leave of the subject. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



f 



^«^e 



?; 



